Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-06-25
Our Jury System.

from the Albany Argus.
The experiences or the Jacob Sharp trial is sum-
Gent to convince any one that our jury system
needs considerable reform to prevent It from max
ing mockery OF justice. II Is In a supreme test Of
this kind that the inherent weakness and absurd
lily OF the system is conspicuousiy shown. About
two thousand Jurors have been summoned to try
an o1 man accused Of o1oing public oeials
been examined under OATH and yet 1t has not been
possible to select twelve men competent 70 sit In
the jury box. over month has elapsed In the ap-
parentiy fruitless task to and In the chief CONNER
cal city OF the Union the center OF wealth and co.
70 70 ay
duty. the panels in great trials bringing forth a
The proportion of respected, well-known and sub
| stantial citizens OF the jury lists Is exceedingly
small for the single that 1t is easy be ex.
cused from jury duty, especially when money or
political influence is 10 question.
Judge Barrett makes a terrible arraignment Of
York, and furnishes preponderanceo or everything
that IS low, ignorant, vicious, and unintelugcnt.
over ase VINO had actually served Within
three months and whose names In some unac.
countable manner had got back into the great
residents poil-clerks mitiamen, occasionally the
names OF even deceased persons" The judge
Business uee To saeree their for
brief period, to the public good. They have too
many loophoes OF escape at present, and. there,
ioiC VIC uuu LIo uTtSS vi eaiC uhcCeOiy, do JuOSO
Barrett terms them, drawn upon for jurors. The
representative men OF New York are seldom or
never summoned. There Is evidently great reform
necessary here. Judge Barrett suggests that all
the properly qualified jurors In New York should
be ascertained in a thorough and effective manner
and duly enrolled, the tax-DOokS and lists or
electors as nucleus, the books OF the mercantile
agencies and the memoirs OF the exchanges and
prominent Organizations TO be examined TO COM
plete the lists OF those liable to jury duty. BY
this means larger number and better class OF
jurors would be available on criminal cases OF
great public interest.
There is much also to censure In the extreme
latitude given to ODjecting to a juror on the
grounds OF supposed prejudice. 1t is very poor
way or obtaining an intelligent jury for grave
case by making The formation of q previous opin-
lon On it as sufficient disqualification. While 1t
Is but equitable and proper that every means
should be adopted to ensure impartial1ty In the
jury-bOx 1t should not be at the expense OF intel
l1gence. No fair-minded, law-abiding, intelligent
citizen, who is sworn in as juror will permit any
previously conceived opinion OF his on the QueS-
ton he Is called upon to decide to influence MIN.
He knows his duty, and may, In nearly every case,
be relied upon to fulfill it. Why, then, should
what might be almost termed dense ignorance and
mental fmbecility be regarded as the best proofs
OF impartial1ty in the 1ury-box? The mode OF ex-
animation OF jurors now in vogue might be ma
naturally disinclned to face the ordeal OF abuse,
inSolence, and insult to which he may be subjected
by counsel In being examined as to his Qualifica-
lions for the jurybox. The next legislature should
take up the reform OF a system that fails to secure
twelve competent men in city OF a million and q
half Inhabitants, after four weeks effort, to try
Jacob Sharp.